10026 21ST AVE W 2016-01-01 MF Import

ON/2;4/2f105 07:'LA PA\ 415 252 9256 ROBINGiT DEYGI.OP �ooa E, A previous sfudy (Weiland Resources 2002) identified a wetland on both sides of the stream, which if present, would require a 75 foot buffer that would encompass the entire project site. in the report prepared by Wetland Resources for the present project, no wetiand is identified, citing changes in Department of Ecology's interpretations. This decision does not resoive that apparent inconsistency. As a reasonable �se is fnund to be appropr�ate regardless of the deas oclhe n and buffer widlh, this decision does not make, nor cloes it rel!r upon, a definitive finding reaulated buffer widih. F. The request is to aitow an encroachment into :he 25 foot :stream buffer of 5 to 12 feet to allow a singie family residonce with 1,120 s.f. building `ootprint, a 1,000 s.f. rear yard and a five foot side yard. �, Poteniial impacts of the proposed development would inr,lude increased stormwater runoff, reduced stormflow attenuation, and reduced wildlife habitat. qpproval Criterla 1. There is no other reasonable use or feasible alternative to the praposed development wi4h less impact on the environmentally sensitive area. Poss'ib e alternal es that would havetiess mp ct Inythe sens tive area clude the fo I wing:R 2 Zone. a. reductfon of the size of the buitding and or yard area in order to minimize the deveiopment footprint on the lot, thereby minimizing buffer displacement; b. reorientation of the building so as to increase the distance of the building and yard from the stream; c. issuance of transier of development rights and dedir,aliny the site as permanent open space. The proposal calls for a building footprint of 1,120 syuare feet and a development footprinl (house + yard) of a little more than 3,400 s.f. The proposed orientation of the house is such that the its rtorth- south dimensions are longer than east-west dimensions. This woufd result in the developed yard being as close as 13 feet to the stream. A minimum 25 foot buffer from the stream can reasonabiy be expecied lo be maintained on this property by reducing ihe size of the yard and or Ihe house, or by simply re-configuringfreorienting the house. A reconfic�uration of the house may reduce the proposed additional buffer to the west, however, the increased benefit from ensuriny the stream bufier does not fall below 25 feet should more than compensate ior the buffer impacts to the less sensitive areas that may be caused by the adjustments. Since a reasonable use can be accommodated on the site, transfer of deveiopment rights would not be an appropriate optfon. Conclusion: Based on a revieur of the application and Iho potential impacts identified in the preceding findings, relatively miner modifications to ihe site plan can resuli in improved protection oi the stream �vhile mainlaining the same intensity of the use as proposed. 2. The proposed development does not pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare on or off of the subject lot. �indinc�: The proposal 4vould not have a significant impact on abutting or downstream properties. The project will comply wilh all pertineN zoning, building and public works standards. Additional runo(f from impervious surfaces (i.e., rookops) would he required to meet Public Works standards. ,%